U.S. officials say top al-Qaida leader killed (Not Bin Laden)

[dave29]

Source: MSNBC

A “high-ranking” al-Qaida figure was killed Thursday in an attack by a drone aircraft, U.S. officials told NBC News.

The officials did not identify who was killed, except to say that it was not al-Qaida’s supreme leader, Osama bin Laden. If the report is confirmed, it would be the first time coalition forces had killed a top al-Qaida figure in almost a year.

The officials said the killing was the result of stepped-up operations targeting al-Qaida leaders in recent weeks.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34368206/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

---

On CBS Website: CBS NEWS CONFIRMS A DRONE MISSILE HAS KILLED A TOP AL QAEDA OFFICIAL

[arcadian]

1. I guess there are only 99 now.

[cliffordu]

3. Well.......

:rofl:

[dave29]

6. If you read the report this was in Pakistan, not Afghanistan --

so you can make fun of the Afghan strategy all you want... this may still be an important story -- if it holds true.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

2. If this report proves accurate, that's good news. Will wait to hear more.

[shadowknows69]

38. So you're enjoying the Bushco Kool Aid?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

45. Eliminating the threat posed by al-Qaeda is a positive thing.

If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.

[No Elephants]

49. We will NEVER eliminate the threat posed by al-Qaida by killing people, not forty more number twos

and not even "the Ace of Spades."

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. Perhaps not eliminate completely, but greatly, greatly erode

[arcadian]

94. Greatly erode, until this guys kids grow up resenting the people who killed their father.

And the cycle continues.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

96. I tend to think the kids of al-Qaeda leaders are pretty unlikely to be fans of the U.S. anyway

[shadowknows69]

63. Because it's a delusional goal.

How can you beat the threat of something if your very presence creates more enemies.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

73. Because the U.S.' very presence doesn't necessarily create more enemies.

It can, but it's not necessarily always the case.

[shadowknows69]

89. Well in this case it is.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

97. Disagree

The drone strike is only one small aspect of the overall effort taking place in this region.

[ima_sinnic]

71. how is the "threat" (sic) "posed by al-Qaeda" "eliminated" by this killing?

the story does not mention how many "collateral" deaths occurred in targeting this one anonymous person, who I am TOLD is some "al-Qaeda #1 leader" or some such bullcrap. I'm not buying any of their bull anymore. A bunch of people were murdered, and we're told one of them was some big "leader" of a nebulous organization that may or may not even exist. They like to throw out these stories every now and then to "harden the resolve" of the American public or some such. They are killing whoever is most profitable to kill--and that would be anyone resisting their imperialist goals and plans.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

75. With all due respect

I would think a reasonable person would wait for all of the facts to come in before leaping to conclusions about collateral deaths in this instance.

[nicky187]

4. Given US unemployment trends...

... sounds like there's some jobs opening up in that organization. Think they're "hiring"?

[hlthe2b]

5. Exactly how many dead "Number Twos" does this make now?

:shrug:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

7. That was the number two's of "al-Qaeda in Iraq"

The number two of the overall organization is Zawahiri.

...never in my life have I said "number two" this much without referencing an awkward bathroom experience.

[dave29]

9. If they got Zawahiri, that would be news.

We'll see.

[wizstars]

18. in this context, they're ALL Number Two's....

n/t

[OnyxCollie]

20. Zawahiri is really the "number one" in al-Qaeda.

Osama is/was more of the money man, and then there was the other guy who got blown up (supposedly for not going along with Zawahiri's idea to take al-Qaeda global).

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. As far as day to day operations, I'd say you're right

bin Laden is more of a figurehead than anything these days. However, as far as the overall rankings that our military uses, he's still ranked #1 will Zahawiri coming in at #2.

[OnyxCollie]

25. And Emmanuel Goldstein coming in at #3.

[No Elephants]

52. Not really. Please see Reply 51.

[Alamuti Lotus]

50. are you referring to Sheikh Abdallah Azzam?

If so, it is true that he had a brief but fierce rivalry with Zawahiri over the direction matters should take after their success in Afghanistan. There is much speculation as to what happened there. Most of it nonsense, as with anything. At the basest level, they competed over Sheikh Ussamah's attention and money. The Egyptian won out and it is speculated that he hired the Pakistani dictator to arrange Azzam's murder (shahid inshallah) -- not that the latter really needed much pressure, as the US-Pakistani-Saudi establishment were rightly terrified of Sheikh Azzam, a geniune revolutionary who really intended to shake up their world.

Really fascinating figure, so much may have transpired differently had he survived.

[OnyxCollie]

68. Yes, that's who I was thinking of.

I took a class on al-Qaeda a year ago but I didn't have my notes.

[No Elephants]

51. Osama is, first and foremost, a spiritual inspiration. His ability to raise money is as a result of

that, not his primary danger to us.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

76. And your point is...?

[Alamuti Lotus]

102. Speculating, and adding in my own noxious flair..

is that 8 years later, every single free breath he takes is a middle finger rammed sideways and flying like a flag aimed at you, and it is this dangerous fact suggesting the impotence of the 'allied forces' that serves as an inspiration to others.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

15. The link provides a nice explanation of why

we've consistently targeted the number three people in al-Qaeda as well. The number three position is that of the director of international operations. Killing the sixth individual to hold this position in the last nine years wouldn't symbolically be as important as killing Zahawiri, but might have more of an actual effect on the ground.

[stlsaxman]

88. "Who are you?" "The new Number Two"... "Who is Number One?"...

"You are, Osama Bin Laden"... "I am not Osama- I am a FREE MAN!"

"BWAHAHAHAHA..."

[Cleita]

8. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but as an American

I can't rejoice in anyone getting killed in my name even if they want to kill me. It just seems so wrong on so many levels. We should be looking for terrorists on our own turf meaning our country and putting them on trial here. Maybe we will learn something. I can't condone killing someone without a trial just because they think that person is a terrorist. The fact he was killed by a drone means we can't even make the self-defense claim.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

10. It's a targeted assassination, makes a lot of people squeemish and rightfully so.

When I consider our nation's extremely limited ability to operate in Pakistan and the fact that most intelligence puts our enemy there, I don't see a lot of other good options though.

[Cleita]

14. One good option. Stay out of Pakistan.

The day they get their hands on a nuke, then we can go invade them, because then our land is in danger of attack, but not before.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

16. People who have consistently attacked our country are hiding out there.

That's a good enough excuse for targeted strikes to me.

[Cleita]

17. Americans are so myopic.

I wish just for once you guys would put yourself in the shoes of the Pakistani whose village is being attacked because there is a suspicion his neighbor is a terrorist. I betcha you would see that person change into an American hater overnight. It's very bad diplomacy. There are more humane ways of dealing with this. Making an enemy of the world just because some of us, very few of us, want revenge is stupid.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

19. I'm not interested in pretending that the story begins and ends with the villager you reference

This battle was going on before his village became involved and it will go on after it is no longer involved in this conflict. With that said...

If the only efforts we were involved in were drone strikes, I'd agree, but that's far from the case. Aside from the efforts we're making to get Afghanistan on its feet, we've also poured massive amounts of aid into Pakistan's military and humanitarian efforts. There are two sides to this coin, even if you're only acknowledging one of them in your post.

[No Elephants]

54. But we have no idea whether the massive amounts we TRIED to pour into Pakistan's miltary

and humanitarian efforts ever got to where they were supposed to get to; and, if any did, what percentage made it. Same deal in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, though we are FINALLY trying to track a bit better.

Besides, if you kill my parents and siblings, all the peanut butter in the world is not going to make me or my children or grandchildren like you. Neither will my neighbors and their descendants.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

77. We know for a fact that some of the aid provided as gotten through

as we've provided it directly - this is particularly true of the military assistance we've provided the Pakistani military in their own battle against militants in South Waziristan.

Secondly, while the deaths of civilians is always tragic, the fact remains that in just the few weeks surronding the start of the South Waziristan offensive, the Taliban and their allies *intentionally* murdered more innocent civilians than we have unintentionally killed since the start of the drone strikes. Frankly, I think a lot of posters focus so heavily on the evils committed by their country that they lose all ability to put matters in their proper context...

[shadowknows69]

95. Sources or are you still just talking out your ass?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

98. You want sources regarding our assisting Pakistan militarily?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-pakistan23-2009oct23,0,660132.story

[DCBob]

32. If OBL is hiding out in my neighbor's house...

I would hope the military or police or FBI would get him. However, I would also hope they would not drop a huge bomb to take out the entire neighborhood.

[Igel]

40. Part of me agrees with you.

The part that actually considers that such people would change into "American haters" overnight.

Most of me doesn't agree with you because I don't see it happening very much. Many of "such people" are already American haters. So there's nto much of a net change.

Much of that part also considers that while such a blast would make them into American haters, having their local mosque blow up wouldn't make them into al-Qa'ida or Taliban haters, or at least they wouldn't admit it.

So, given the starting part, and the ease of becoming an American hater and the difficulty of having the same kind of act make them into AQ haters, I figure that it's the typical Catch-22 tribal societies impose on their enemies and competitors (but I repeat myself).

Remember, it's all about hierarchy and submission.

[No Elephants]

48. Disagree, but assuming you are correct, what do you think made "most people" American haters?

I know many people from the Middle East, including Iraq. They used to think the world of Americans. Many still do. Those who do hate us hate us for what we have done in their part of the world, not for whimsical reasons. And, as we continue to do more, we make more and more enemies among them.

I also disagree with you that having Al Qaida blow up their mosque would not make them Al Qaida haters, but, first, of course, they'd have to believe that Al Qaida was really the culprit.

[shadowknows69]

39. Of course they are dear. And we didn't create any of that hatred did we?

Oh yeah, we created almost all of it. You don't punish another country for your own foreign policy chickens coming home to roost. Yes, if it wasn't a MIHOP that's exactly what 9/11 was.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

46. What country are we punishing again?

The one whose government is backing our efforts behind the scenes?

[No Elephants]

55. The Shah of Iran backed our efforts, too, and not only "behind the scenes." What's your point?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

78. How in God's name do you feel these two situations are comparable?

[shadowknows69]

64. The corrupt U.S. puppet government you mean?

They don't get the bombs dropped on their weddings and funerals.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

79. Pakistan's government is our puppet?

Really? Because until the last year or so, their policy towards the Taliban was pretty widely considered a slap in our faces...

[shadowknows69]

92. You can keep blathering the Military Party line all you want.

You won't find any agreement with me. When are you enlisting again?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

99. Military Party line?

[No Elephants]

53. They are hiding all over the world, including the US. Does that justify bombing your neighborhood?

[shadowknows69]

65. Always crickets when you ask the hawks that one.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

81. Deleted, dupe.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

82. Or maybe, just maybe, I hadn't had a chance to sign back on until now.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

80. Actually, al-Qaeda's leadership is NOT hiding "all over the world"

For the most part, it can be tracked to a very specific region, the one our military is focusing on.

[shadowknows69]

90. How much does the MIC pay you for propaganda?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

100. Oh spare me

[swilton]

22. Even if they had a nuke

Our land is not in danger unless they have a trans-continental delivery system to go with it.

[earthlite]

27. Shipping container

Only about 2% that come in the country are checked by Customs.

[earthlite]

26. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

nt

[Cleita]

34. Pakistan is a country, a nation.

Al Queda is terrorist organization. They don't have nukes. This is the mistake constantly made by equating an organization to a country and then deciding to bomb them. It sucks IMHO.

[No Elephants]

56. Bingo. And agree.

[earthlite]

69. Your wording seemed to suggest

that you were talking about Pakistan getting a nuclear weapon. Pardon the misunderstanding.

[elocs]

37. Yep, wait until the next Republican president uses it in ways we would not like here at DU.

What happens if terrorists decide to use targeted assassinations in this country? If this is really a "war" on terrorism and they are our enemy the we are theirs, are they not also justified in using targeted assassination rather than mindless terrorism?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

44. They've already stated that they're at war with the U.S. and that we're their enemies

So this hardly opens a door in that regard.

[No Elephants]

57. You think we cannot damage ourselves any further, whether in their eyes and/or in the eyes

of the rest of the countries and peoples of the world?

And I am guessing you were as much for our actions before we "opened that door" as you are now.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

83. Quite frankly, I think much of the world would be greatly pleased if al-Qaeda were crushed.

[shadowknows69]

66. Who did? Some easily faked audio and video tapes?

Do you get sold a lot of vaccum cleaners too?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. Yes, yes, throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bin Laden has made this clear for a very long time, if you want to disregard it, that's your businhess.

[shadowknows69]

91. If you want to be a sheep and believe Newspeak that's your business.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

101. I realize you think quoting 1984 eliminates the need for you to refute my points

but it really doesn't, it's a cop out.

[arcadian]

11. Thanks Cleita

I think you express the sentiment of a lot of DUers.

[harun]

67. Agree. Extrajudicial killing by joy stick is tolerated for some reason right now

but in the future I think they will ban this for all nations.

[ck4829]

12. "it would be the first time coalition forces had killed a top al-Qaida figure in almost a year"

And I thought we were done with the practice of killing the Number Two's.

[No Elephants]

58. Gee, one top Al Qaida figure per year. Wowza!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. And your alternative course of action would entail...?

[Clio the Leo]

13. Another article....

US strike kills 4 al Qaeda, 2 Taliban in South Waziristan
By Bill RoggioDecember 10, 2009 11:25 AM

The US has conducted the first unmanned airstrike in the lawless tribal agency of South Waziristan since the Pakistani Army launched an offensive there in mid-October.

The strike, carried out by unmanned Predator or Reaper attack aircraft, hit a Taliban "hideout" in Tanga in the Ladha region in South Waziristan. Ladha is one of several Taliban strongholds that were the target of the Pakistani Army's offensive against the Mehsud branch of the Taliban in South Waziristan.

Four al Qaeda operatives and two Taliban fighters were killed in the attack, according to reports from the region. "Eyewitnesses said the toll could be mount," Geo News reported. It is not known if senior al Qaeda or Taliban commanders were killed in the attack.

The Pakistani military denied that the US carried out an airstrike in Pakistan today, but US officials contacted by The Long War Journal confirmed the strike. The Pakistani military also denied that two other strikes carried out in October took place; these strikes were later confirmed, however.

"The Pakistani Army doesn't want US interference in their operation in South Waziristan," one offical told The Long War Journal. "Their is winding down and they haven't achieved their goal: to kill or capture Hakeemullah Mehsud and Taliban's leadership, and they don't want to be one-upped by the US."

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/12/us_strike_kills_four.php#ixzz0ZK8MyEK7

[swilton]

21. But how many other civilians have we or are drones

killed in the meantime? One AlQaeda member vs. literally dozens if not hundreds of civilians? I guess by the law of averages we'll eventually get lucky enough to hit the right target with our drones.

[Oregone]

24. Great news! Job well done. Now lets pack it up and head back home

Mission accomplished already

[WheelWalker]

28. +1

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

29. Applying pressure on al-Qaeda has seriously deteriorated the organization

why would we revert that now and allow them to recover?

[Oregone]

30. Then can the US never leave?

I mean, occupying it indefinitely will not destroy an international rogue terrorist organization, so, well, they will ALWAYS exist in the short term (for a few decades or so).

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

31. Who said that?

It's clear that our efforts have already severely undercut al-Qaeda's ability to raise funds and train fighters. By stepping that up, as it appears we will be doing, they could potentially be crushed in a relatively quick fashion.

[Oregone]

43. LOL. Crushing a sophisticated international crime ring by occupying some backwards country

Whatcha smokin?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

47. Cutting off access to funds, recruits and weaponry tends to have that effect, yes.

[No Elephants]

61. You have zero evidence that Al Qaida is going broke or lacks weapons. As for recruits,

the actions of the US have always been Al Qaida's best recruiting tool and that has, if anything, increased.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

86. Yeah, the Zahawiri's public appeal for funds was just something he put together when he was bored

Anyway, while the overall number of terrorist attacks has increased in the world, al-Qaeda itself is hurting. The bloodbath it pursued (and continues to pursue) in Iraq turned many of its allies against it and the same is true of the Taliban/AQ in Pakistan. They're at a point where they're publicly appealing for funds and have proven basically incapable of keeping someone in charge of day to day operations alive or free long enough to gain much traction. I realize you don't like the war, but your analysis is pretty far off.

[No Elephants]

59. " It's clear" that Al Qaida is having trouble raising funds and training fighters? I call bullshit.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. Already covered this.

[shadowknows69]

93. You covered it like you have everything with no source and less truth.

[shadowknows69]

33. Here we go again. Different President, same propaganda machine.

[No Elephants]

60. IOIODI.

It's okay if Obama does it.

So much for abiding principles.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

35. Interesting that anyone would unrec. this thread.

[onethatcares]

36. I thought they did that years ago.

you mean there are more than 1,000,000 of them?

Of course the victim was not identified.

The line "it would be the first time coaliton forces had killed a top AQ figure in almost a year" could be read in many ways.

[Bragi]

41. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! /nt

[dhpgetsit]

42. It's been a while since I have heard this.

But I have definitely heard it a few times before.

But guess what? You kill one and another one takes his place.

[No Elephants]

62. Number Two died again! Yippeeeeee.

[DCBob]

70. Local media: Abu Yahya al-Libi (AQ Number 3), natural successor to OBL, killed...

(CBS) A U.S. government official says a top al Qaeda operative has been killed in a drone attack in western Pakistan, and local media says that the strike killed al Qaeda's number 3 in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi. The U.S. is still not confirming the report, CBS News has learned. Abu Yahya al-Libi is the spiritual successor to Palestinian philosopher Abu Azzam - and the inspiration for much of Bin Laden's beliefs, according to CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan. He is very powerful and believed by some to be the natural successor to Bin Laden.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/11/world/main5967266.shtml

Big news if true..

[formercia]

74. What did they do, attack Langley?

:wtf: